RDavies wrote:It seems that the current rules are by far the most popular, good for me as my new rifle is being built to current rules. As for the good old days, I thought things were pretty good now in F std. Big turn outs and getting bigger. As has been mentioned, as long as things dont go tactical.
Would someone please educate me. I'm not getting the tactical issue
Sure they're not my cup of tea, but I'm not seeing the problem.
M12LRPV wrote: Would someone please educate me. I'm not getting the tactical issue
Sure they're not my cup of tea, but I'm not seeing the problem.
This is just my slant on this: Tactical rifles are perceived by many *insert general public/media* as being designed to kill people, they are used by the military and other agencies. As a precision shooting sport we would not want to be seen in this light nor be seen that our rifle ranges are training grounds for potential dangers to society. We also do not use human shaped targets etc which you can find elsewhere, no names mentioned.
We simply do not want any accidental bad press or public perception, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...showing my age there.
M12LRPV wrote: Would someone please educate me. I'm not getting the tactical issue
Sure they're not my cup of tea, but I'm not seeing the problem.
This is just my slant on this: Tactical rifles are perceived by many *insert general public/media* as being designed to kill people, they are used by the military and other agencies. As a precision shooting sport we would not want to be seen in this light nor be seen that our rifle ranges are training grounds for potential dangers to society. We also do not use human shaped targets etc which you can find elsewhere, no names mentioned.
We simply do not want any accidental bad press or public perception, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...showing my age there.
Lynn
The way I look at it the *insert general public/media* want to remove ALL guns and the space frame target rifles common on the mound look no different to some of the tactical rigs to those with no idea *insert general public/media*.
So nothing is prevented unless we stop the use of anything that doesn't have a timber stock.
M12LRPV wrote: Would someone please educate me. I'm not getting the tactical issue
Sure they're not my cup of tea, but I'm not seeing the problem.
This is just my slant on this: Tactical rifles are perceived by many *insert general public/media* as being designed to kill people, they are used by the military and other agencies. As a precision shooting sport we would not want to be seen in this light nor be seen that our rifle ranges are training grounds for potential dangers to society. We also do not use human shaped targets etc which you can find elsewhere, no names mentioned.
Lynn
Snobbery doesn't increase membership,
You have to make it what people want................
I am all for staying as nice in the public eye as possible but there is a limit, if they are going to be offended by human targets then they generally will find offence whatever we do as it is shooting they are against full stop.
Last edited by timothi3197 on Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No snobbery was intended, I am also an SSAA member, the question was asked and I attempted to give an answer, hence why I framed it as "my slant" so as to indicate that this would not be everyones view. The 'no names mentioned' was to be tactful, so as to not appear to malign anyone. Each to their own, I simply said how many see any shooting sport and if you don't agree, that's fine but maybe you haven't come up against some of the very real negative attitude that is out there.
Lynn is dead right about the perception on things. We most definitely need to keep well away from the "killing" look. Avoid human shaped targets, military looking rifles and any perception that we have rednecks around.
I was once involved with a club (not fullbore) that was asked by the TV media if they could do an article on the club and its activities. There were a range of activities that people were shooting at.
The TV media were very nice and seemed very genuine. They took film of all sorts of activities and interviewed people in the nicest way.
Beaut!! - we thought. Good publicity for the club and a balanced presentation of what we were all about.
We were totally shocked when it finally went to air. There was one activity where there was a human figure shaped target. Unfortunately there was one shooter who was dressed up in all the camouflage gear and had a "tactical" looking rifle. He did look a bit "redneck".
The whole program concentrated entirely on this single facet of the club and spun the story of how people like this should not be allowed to have firearms and even better, all firearms perhaps should be banned. We were portrayed as gun toting idiots who shouldn't be allowed.
All of this was done to suit the purposes of the media. They aren't interested in good news stories, only sensational ones, and if it isn't sensational, they'll twist it so that it is.
The club disbanded a few months later. The landowner found it difficult to live down the stigma of having the range, and most members were too ashamed to admit they belonged.
bobped wrote:Lynn is dead right about the perception on things. We most definitely need to keep well away from the "killing" look. Avoid human shaped targets, military looking rifles and any perception that we have rednecks around.
I was once involved with a club (not fullbore) that was asked by the TV media if they could do an article on the club and its activities. There were a range of activities that people were shooting at. The TV media were very nice and seemed very genuine. They took film of all sorts of activities and interviewed people in the nicest way. Beaut!! - we thought. Good publicity for the club and a balanced presentation of what we were all about. We were totally shocked when it finally went to air. There was one activity where there was a human figure shaped target. Unfortunately there was one shooter who was dressed up in all the camouflage gear and had a "tactical" looking rifle. He did look a bit "redneck". The whole program concentrated entirely on this single facet of the club and spun the story of how people like this should not be allowed to have firearms and even better, all firearms perhaps should be banned. We were portrayed as gun toting idiots who shouldn't be allowed.
All of this was done to suit the purposes of the media. They aren't interested in good news stories, only sensational ones, and if it isn't sensational, they'll twist it so that it is.
The club disbanded a few months later. The landowner found it difficult to live down the stigma of having the range, and most members were too ashamed to admit they belonged.
Bob Pedersen
Staying mainstream hasn't helped smallbore or fullbore/F class numbers grow at all it seems. Unless member numbers are actually growing and I am not aware of it?
I do remember an older Fullbore competitor bagging out F class a few years ago before taking it up himself.
Anyway back to topic perhaps...............................
Last edited by timothi3197 on Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good. I'm glad you edited that last bit. If a "media" person had read it, he might have got the wrong impression.
I've just come back from the National Queens where there were over 200 Entrants. Before that the QRA Queens where there were over 300 entrants.
Have a look at the F Standard Grading page on the VRA web site here:-
http://www.vra.asn.au/grading/fsgrading.shtml It has about 140 people on it, and that's only one state. What's not growing?
No more comment from me. I try and avoid some things.
bobped wrote:Good. I'm glad you edited that last bit. If a "media" person had read it, he might have got the wrong impression.
I've just come back from the National Queens where there were over 200 Entrants. Before that the QRA Queens where there were over 300 entrants. Have a look at the F Standard Grading page on the VRA web site here:- http://www.vra.asn.au/grading/fsgrading.shtml It has about 140 people on it, and that's only one state. What's not growing?
No more comment from me. I try and avoid some things.
As a matter of interest.
I work closely with the NSW F Class assoc in as much as keeping records for grading.
That list now has 251 names on it and these are people who ONLY attend prize meetings.
Each new set of results I receive from Greg Warrian invariably has new names on it, --mainly from NSW.
The list has names from NSW, QLD and a few from SA and WA --not VIC as they have their own list of Vic only.
More and More are attending PM's---because of grading, and the efforts of a few dedicated persons who actually spend more time " getting it done " than whinging about how bad things are.
If the NRAA would bite the bullett and introduce grading nationally I dare say those numbers would dramatically increase.
Of course it all needs to be pushed locally.
This year the ACT will again host the National F Class teams, now a yearly event on the NRAA calender--unheard of 3 years ago and openly denied it would happen by some.
These things do not happen overnight, nor are they the brainchild of those who run the show. They come about thru the dedication of a few who want to see this great sport thrive--, yep some from Tassie too.
Barry
bobped wrote:Lynn is dead right about the perception on things. We most definitely need to keep well away from the "killing" look. Avoid human shaped targets, military looking rifles and any perception that we have rednecks around.
I was once involved with a club (not fullbore) that was asked by the TV media if they could do an article on the club and its activities. There were a range of activities that people were shooting at. The TV media were very nice and seemed very genuine. They took film of all sorts of activities and interviewed people in the nicest way. Beaut!! - we thought. Good publicity for the club and a balanced presentation of what we were all about. We were totally shocked when it finally went to air. There was one activity where there was a human figure shaped target. Unfortunately there was one shooter who was dressed up in all the camouflage gear and had a "tactical" looking rifle. He did look a bit "redneck". The whole program concentrated entirely on this single facet of the club and spun the story of how people like this should not be allowed to have firearms and even better, all firearms perhaps should be banned. We were portrayed as gun toting idiots who shouldn't be allowed.
All of this was done to suit the purposes of the media. They aren't interested in good news stories, only sensational ones, and if it isn't sensational, they'll twist it so that it is.
The club disbanded a few months later. The landowner found it difficult to live down the stigma of having the range, and most members were too ashamed to admit they belonged.
Bob Pedersen
Looks like the wrong lesson was learned.
Instead of "ban tactical" it should have been "don't trust the media"
RAVEN wrote:timothi3197 You reap what you sow Do bugger all and membership will decline work it out from there
Right on the money, Richard.
Bob -- see PM
John
So defensive, hit a nerve have I?
You both should be aware that even though I offered to run an adult ed course and tried to get a junior .22 short course going it was declined as not worth the effort(all they had to do was give the okay for them to be held). We also wanted general range days etc etc. I had even organised one of my uncle's excavators and a truck free of charge(I was going to drive it) to repair a few mounds and the mantlet- nope not allowed. I even arranged a donation of barbed wire and posts for the 200 yard range- nope not allowed.
It could all have been to the TRA's benefit with just a little positivity, we tried to do a lot but got stymied by arrogance.
F class as it is now is great if you can get past all the attitudes but at the moment in TAS it is just easier to go elsewhere.
Nope tried for two years to improve things but you can only push for so long. I will get off my soapbox and give your ears a rest.
Menu
Newest members